Filed: Oct. 18, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-20910 Summary Calendar WARREN PIERRE CANADY, Petitioner-Appellant, versus JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CV-1947 - - - - - - - - - - October 17, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Warren Pierre Canady
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-20910 Summary Calendar WARREN PIERRE CANADY, Petitioner-Appellant, versus JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CV-1947 - - - - - - - - - - October 17, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Warren Pierre Canady a..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20910
Summary Calendar
WARREN PIERRE CANADY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CV-1947
- - - - - - - - - -
October 17, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Warren Pierre Canady appeals the district court’s denial as
procedurally barred of the speedy-trial claim presented in his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court erred in finding
that the claim had not been presented to the state courts.
According to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, in a response
to our certified questions filed after the ruling of the district
court, the claim was presented to and considered by that court in
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-20910
-2-
a state habeas application. Thus, it was not procedurally
barred. Although the district court gave an alternative holding
that the speedy trial claim lacked merit, the basis in the record
must be clarified before that conclusion may be considered by
this court. Accordingly, the portion of the district court’s
order denying Canady’s speedy-trial claim is VACATED, and this
case is hereby REMANDED for the district court to elaborate on
its reasons for concluding the claim lacks merit.
Canady’s motion to expedite his appeal is hereby DENIED.